The age old question -- to cover cheerleading or not?

Hacker has the biggest reason not to do it -- do it once and you're stuck.

Seriously, I don't know how you would write it.

The Podunk Pussycats won the all-county cheer championships yesterday, outpointing rival Dimsdale, 54 1/2-46 3/4.

"We worked hard to earn this," Pussycats coach Stanita Sweatsalot said.

The key may have been the squad managing to catch freshman Venita Vault after her 720 forward somersault. They dropped her 16 times in practice this week.

"Practice makes perfect," senior cheer captain Desiree Digits said. "That and the back brace makes it a lot easier to hang onto her."

 

People argue to me weekly that NASCAR isn't a sport. I may not think it is. But it's recognized as one.

I just don't see where personal feelings can outrank a state association. And shottie, your example is embarrassing for you.

 

No, I think it's quite valid. Somebody made a decision somewhere that X is competitive and Y is not. Who says that should be the final word?

 

You run the score, you interview the coach and a couple of the cheerleaders, you talk about what they worked on (maybe they got a season-best score on tumbling or dismount or whatever one of the 13 scoring standards are). It's not that hard. It's not really any different than covering gymnastics.

If the state association calls it a sport, then your not covering it is a product of your opinion. And that's dangerous ground to be treading. Case in point:

How would you decide what gets covered? Personal taste? Again, I don't think a whole lot of competition cheerleading, but if I'm a responsible SE, it's out of my hands. Unless I want to tell the public "I'll cover Sport A but not B because I don't like B." And when you get right down to it, there's not a lot of difference in interest between your non-revenue sports. So why does field hockey, lacrosse (in non-Maryland/New York areas), gymnastics, swimming or cross country get covered more? Because it seems sportier? Not very viable ground, I don't think.

 

Your definition of "responsible SE" may be a personal definition. Some may believe being a responsible sports editor means making value decisions and acting upon them.

Painting everything with the same brush may be an even-handed way to go, but it's probably not realistic or optimal.

And here's another point -- if i'm the sports editor, I'm going to sink or swim with my decisions. So they'd better be what I think is right.

 

One thing that disqualifies cheerleading in many places is that it is not considered a sport by the state association (and many women are adamant that it not be for Title IX reasons).

Beyond that, we don't have local competitions. When our cheerleaders compete, they go away to Las Vegas or Orlando or something. Much as I'd like to, we don't have the budget to travel with them.

And, further, we certainly do make judgments on covering -- or not -- every single game and every single sport.

High school bowling or weightlifting may never get a story while lacrosse or swimming or whatever might get several.

 

What's the standard, then? Personal feeling? Consensus of sj? Sign from above?

God knows there's a lot in our line of work that's relative and open for debate, but you have to have something concerte on which to make your judgements. If a school in your circulation area wins a state title in an event sponsored by your state association, which has already deemed it a sport by their standards, then how do you justify not acknowledging it?

 

MM, if there was something concrete on which to make these judgments, this debate would be non-existent. Sometimes, you just have to fly by the seat of your pants.

And although "personal feeling," I will admit, doesn't sound right ... well, you might just have to use your own judgment. And personal feelings weigh into judgments.

 

Yes. But I'd rather fly by the seat that has some backing.

If you ignore cheerleading against everything official saying it's a sport, I can't see them just accepting that. Nor should they.

 

1) I'm in this assuming the standard set forth in the original post -- state assoc. sanctions it as a sport

2) Are you making that call based on whether it's a sport or not, or because of reader interest? I don't think anyone (certainly not me) would be so audacious as to suggest that all sports get equal coverage because they're sports and thus indistinguishable. But if there's equal interest in, say, field hockey and cheerleading, and both have equal standing in the eyes of the state association, then how does one get regular-season gamers and features on team captains while the other gets nothing? Again, personal taste?

 

It wouldn't be my favorite thing to do, but I don't see a major difference between covering competitive cheerleading and a gymastics meet. If the state is calling it a sport, and the state is designing some form of scoring system based on judging, why is it any different than gymnastics?

It sucks Pern, but I'd try to cover it somehow. Not the sideline, rah-rah stuff, but the competition stuff.

I initially agreed with whomever said that this opens a can of worms because you'd have to start covering dance team competitions. However, the key point is that cheerleading is now being considered a varsity sport. I don't know that dance team is recognized as a varsity sport anywhere.

It's easy to say no to coverage of competitive cheerleading. Right now, it seems ridiculous. It wasn't that long ago that it seemed ridiculous to cover girl's/women's athletics of any kind. Now, particularly at the prep level, coverage of girl's/women's sports is a major key at the vast majority of places.

 

IJAG, if you try to please everyone, you're going to wind up pleasing nobody.

Let's say cheerleading IS a state-sanctioned sport in my state (which it isn't). If I have the resources to cover that or to cover non-sanctioned high school hockey, which draws 400-500 fans a game, I'm not going by the book on that one.

Might that decision lose some readers? You betcha. But you can't administrate a sports department in constant dread of that.